IANA, Please update the "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Prefix Information Option Flags” registry to capitalize ”preferred flag” in the Description of PIO Option Bit 3.
Old: PIO Option Bit Description 3 P - DHCPv6-PD preferred flag New: PIO Option Bit Description 3 P - DHCPv6-PD Preferred Flag Diff file is here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-diff.html Best regards, RFC Editor/ap > On Jun 10, 2025, at 3:48 PM, Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > Hi Authors, > > David - Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files per the nits you > pointed out. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.xml > > The relevant diff files are posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 > changes) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff > between last version and this) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between > last version and this) > > And we have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9762 > > All - As we have received all author approvals, we will now ask IANA to > update their registry accordingly. After the IANA updates are complete, we > will move forward with the publication process. > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/ap > >> On Jun 10, 2025, at 10:13 AM, David 'equinox' Lamparter <equi...@diac24.net> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Alanna & all, >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 08:50:55AM -0700, Alanna Paloma wrote: >>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.txt >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.pdf >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.xml >> >> I've reread it and I only noticed one language nit that I'd like to >> raise: >> >> Under "7.2. Using Delegated Prefix(es)" >> >> "The client MAY use the prefix to allow devices directly connected to it >> to obtain IPv6 addresses. For example, the client MAY route traffic for >> that prefix to **the=>an** interface and send a RA containing a PIO for >> the prefix on **the=>that** interface. That interface MUST NOT be the >> interface the prefix is obtained from. If the client advertises the >> prefix on an interface and it has formed addresses from the prefix, then >> it MUST act as though the addresses were assigned to that interface for >> the purposes of Neighbor Discovery and Duplicate Address Detection." >> >> (Note inline marking with **text**) >> >> This is - boiled down - "the interface, the interface, that interface >> MUST NOT be the interface obtained from, an interface, that interface." >> >> The first 2 "the" are confusing and should be "an" and "that", as is >> done later. The only "the" interface here should be "the interface the >> prefix is obtained from". The first 2 references to interfaces are the >> same in referring to some other interface as in the 2nd half, where >> (IMHO correctly) "an" and "that" are used. >> >> >> I don't believe it's absolutely necessary to fix this, I don't see it as >> a content/correctness problem, just language that raised a "weird" flag >> for me. >> >> Either way: Approved (with or without this edit). >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> -David >> >> >> P.S.: I really wasn't sure whether to say something about such a tiny >> issue, I hope this doesn't trigger an avalanche... also apologies for >> not getting to this earlier :(. > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
